Sampurna Behrua Versus Union of India & Ors

(1) It is mandated that every State should have a Juvenile Justice Board in
place in every District on or before 31st
December, 2015.

Arunachal Pradesh is very
vast and perhaps does not have much juvenile crime. If that is so, the State of
Arunachal Pradesh need not have a Juvenile Justice Board in every District, but
the other States and Union Territories must have a Juvenile Justice Board in
every District, as mentioned above on or before 31st December, 2015.

It is made clear that
there is no prohibition in law in having more than one Juvenile Justice Board
in a District depending upon the number of pending inquiries and the distance
involved in moving children from the Observation Home to the venue of the
Juvenile Justice Board.

Therefore, it is made
clear that a District can have more than one Juvenile Justice Board.

For example, in the
District of Pune, there are 1935 inquiries pending (as on 31.3.2015) as
reported by NALSA, and there seems to be no reason why there should be only one
Juvenile Justice Board in that
District.

Under the circumstances,
wherever necessary, more than one Juvenile Justice Board should be set up in
districts, wherever necessary.

We, therefore, direct the
Registrar General of all the High Courts to take up the matter with Hon'ble the
Chief Justice of the High Court and the Juvenile Justice Committee of the High
Court and look into this matter in conjunction with the Executive Chairman of
the State Legal Services Authority and the Member Secretary of the State Legal
Services Authority and set up an appropriate number of Juvenile Justice Boards,
wherever necessary.

As regards vacancies, we
direct that all vacancies in the Juvenile Justice Boards should be filled up on
or before 31st December, 2015 in accordance with Rule 92 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 by a Selection Committee presided
over by a retired Judge of the High Court.

(2) The number of
inquiries pending with the Juvenile Justice Boards
across the country as on 31st March,
2015 is an alarming figure of 1,30,572.

In the State of Uttar
Pradesh, there appear to be 34,569 cases pending. The State of Uttar Pradesh is
directed to comply with the directions we have given above at the earliest (and
not wait till 31st December, 2015) so that the number of inquiries
is substantially reduced.

Ideally, there should not
be more than 100 inquiries pending before each Juvenile Justice Board so that
they can be disposed of in the required period of four months. This will mean
that many of the Juvenile Justice Boards will have to streamline their working
so that the numbers are reduced at the earliest.

(3) From the report
prepared by NALSA, we find that the number of sittings of the Juvenile Justice
Board per week is extremely inadequate in some
places. For example, in the District
of Pune, the Juvenile Justice Board meets three times in a week. Given the
large number of inquiries pending in that District, it will be more appropriate
if the Juvenile Justice Board holds its sittings daily.

We, therefore, direct
thatwherever there area largenumber of inquiries, asdecided
by the Juvenile Justice Committee of the High Court and the
Registrar General of the High Court, instructions should be issued to the
Juvenile Justice Boards to hold their sittings daily, so that the pendency does
not pile up. In this regard, our attention has been drawn to Rule 9(3) the
Rules, which reads as follows:

"9. Sittings of the
Board.

(1) ***

(2)***

(3) The Board shall meet
on all working days of a week, unless the case pendency is less in a particular
district and concerned authority issues an order in this regard."

(4) We are distressed to
note that the distance between the Juvenile Justice Board and the Observation
Home in some cases is extremely large. NALSA has pointed out that in Assam and
Odisha, for example, the distance between the Juvenile Justice Board and the
Observation Home is in the region of 400kms/450 kms. This is totally
unacceptable considering the fact that in Rule 9(1) of the Rules, it is
required that the Juvenile Justice Board should sit in the vicinity of the
Observation Home.

The State Governments are
directed to look into the matter at the earliest and to comply with the Rules.
The Juvenile Justice Committee of the High Court and the Registrar General of
the High Court are requested to look into the matter and ensure that the
Juvenile Justice Boards hold their sittings in close proximity to the
Observation Homes.

We direct the State
Governments to ensure that, to the extent possible, certified Observations
Homes are set up within the close proximity of the Juvenile Justice Boards, in
case it is not possible to establish new Observation Homes.

We may note that in view
of the large distances that are involved more often than not, the children are
not able to be in touch with their relatives including their parents and this
can also have a psychological impact on them. It is, therefore, necessary that
the Observation Home should not be far away from the place where the Juvenile
Justice Board is located.

(5) From the report
prepared by NALSA, we find that in many places the number of panel lawyers
engaged by the State Legal Services Authority is
inadequate. Ms. Indu Malhotra,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of NALSA assures that this matter
will be looked into and an adequate number of effective lawyers will be
empanelled to provide free legal assistance, advice and
services to juveniles in conflict with law.

(6) We are informed by
the learned senior counsel appearing for NALSA that a Committee for Developing
Module for Training of Lawyers has been set up with Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manju
Goel (retd.) as a Chairperson. We are told that the Committee is in the process
of framing the curriculum and methodology for training of legal aid lawyers on
issues relating to child rights. We request the Committee to complete its
task on or before 31st December, 2015. While doing so, the Committee will take
the assistance of others who are not connected with the legal fraternity and in
terms of our order dated 10th April, 2015.

(7) With regard to the
number of Probation Officers and the nature and duration of training, we
propose to take up the matter on some other date.

It has been suggested by
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the
Principal Magistrates heading the Juvenile Justice Boards should not be asked
to do any other judicial work. This is a matter which is to be decided by the
High Court and we direct the Registrar General of each High Court to look into
the matter. Of course, the Registrar General will take into consideration the
number of pending inquiries before the Juvenile Justice Board and if there are
a large number of such inquiries, it would be worthwhile to have a full time
Principal Magistrate, In-charge of the Juvenile Justice Board.

We are also of the
opinion that it may be preferable to have a lady judicial officer as the
Principal Magistrate. This may also be looked into.

We also direct
the Registrar Generals of the High Courts to issue directions to the social
workers to participate actively in the deliberations before the Juvenile
Justice Boards.

Mr. Colin Gonsalves has
also pointed out that a large number of posts and supporting staff of Juvenile
Justice Boards are lying vacant. We request the Juvenile Justice Committee of
the High Courts to look into the matter and direct the State Governments to
fill up all the posts, in any case, by 31st December, 2015. The
Member Secretary, NALSA will direct the Member Secretary, State Legal Services
Authorities to look into this aspect and follow up with the State Governments
so that the posts are filled up and our directions are complied with at the
earliest.

We are distressed to note
that in spite of our order dated 10th April, 2015, the Union of India, through
the Ministry of Women and Child Development, has not filed its affidavit. We
have commented on the laxity of this Ministry in other proceedings also and
also about the lack of concern that this Ministry has for children. We are
unable to appreciate this complete apathy of the Ministry on an important issue
concerning the children of our country. We record our displeasure.

Learned Additional
Solicitor General says that the affidavit in terms of our order dated 10th
April, 2015 is ready and will be filed within one
week.

The Registry
will accept the affidavit subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee which shall be utilised for juvenile
justice issues.

List the matter on 11th
September, 2015. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of all
the High Courts forthwith to be placed before the Juvenile Justice Committee of
the High Courts.